Same here. Systemd totally destroyed Debian's stability for me. It got to the point where I couldn't do routine updates without systemd typically breaking in some obscure way. I can't have that nonsense going on with the servers I'm responsible for. So I slowly migrated them over to OpenBSD and things couldn't be better.
systemd was what pushed me into trying out FreeBSD seriously for the first time, three years ago, after 15+ years of Debian as a user and develop. So many stupid problems. FreeBSD was like a breath of fresh air, and I wish I'd tried it out years ago. Today, I'm using FreeBSD increasingly, contributing to the ports here and there, and finding it to be mostly pretty good. Not as polished as Debian in every respect, but the package manager is continually improving and it's on a par with apt at this point. And being able to install straight onto ZFS is huge; Debian and Ubuntu need to get this into their installers.
The incompatibility is massively overblown. It's just another third-party kernel module, and isn't a big deal. Have a read of some of the previous discussions about it.
Based on what I have read of previous discussions, though the user may add third-party kernel modules under an incompatible license to a private installation, a distributor is not allowed to distribute the combination. This is why third-party kernel modules available separately cannot be included in an install image distributed to the public, as the distributor of an install image has to distribute the combination.
Why is ZFS such a huge advantage for a home user? It uses a lot of RAM and many features are just not needed for anything less than a massive NAS/SAN. Sure a 787 is great and has a lot of features but it just is not good from running down to the local grocery store.
It can certainly be overkill on low end systems. But its features are pretty great, and quite a few of them are useful even on a single disc/SSD setup. Like every filesystem, it makes a bunch of tradeoffs and you need to decide if they are acceptable or if another filesystem would be more appropriate for your needs. If you want to use some of those features, it can still make sense to use it. Lastly, the memory usage you mentioned is mainly an issue for ZFS on Linux where there's duplication in the page
BSDs dying? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd be more concerned about the effects of systemd on the Linux distributions. :)
Mod Parent Up.
After running Linux for a decade, systemd pushed me to try both FreeBSD and OpenBSD for the first time ever.
Re: BSDs dying? (Score:0)
Same here. Systemd totally destroyed Debian's stability for me. It got to the point where I couldn't do routine updates without systemd typically breaking in some obscure way. I can't have that nonsense going on with the servers I'm responsible for. So I slowly migrated them over to OpenBSD and things couldn't be better.
Re: BSDs dying? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And being able to install straight onto ZFS is huge; Debian and Ubuntu need to get this into their installers.
I don't see how that can be done legally, as Linux and ZFS have incompatible copyright licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
The line is distributing the combination (Score:2)
Based on what I have read of previous discussions, though the user may add third-party kernel modules under an incompatible license to a private installation, a distributor is not allowed to distribute the combination. This is why third-party kernel modules available separately cannot be included in an install image distributed to the public, as the distributor of an install image has to distribute the combination.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is ZFS such a huge advantage for a home user? It uses a lot of RAM and many features are just not needed for anything less than a massive NAS/SAN. Sure a 787 is great and has a lot of features but it just is not good from running down to the local grocery store.
Re: (Score:3)